Foundations of science

[keelanz]

This is my first post so i hope its in the right place (im new to this site) and im interesting in understand or standingover the foundations of physics, most physical equations can be proven within the realms of our testing apparatus but for me the very nature of this equation seems deceptive so i would appreciate your feedback

okay so Einstein's proposal was as follows

E = Energy (the fundamental force for & of our physical existence(a physical form of change( time is needed and for([x=12],[y=112.7],[z=1pp])....you get the picture)))

M = Mass (Existence as our approximate mass relative to the specific weighing system but not fallacious of it)

C = Constant (The speed of light, being the fastest or largest physical force in existence(a constant change so to speak))

2 = squaring that number(adding a value to itself its valued amount of times(second level of perceptual inflation whereby 1squared adds a zero, 1 cubed adds another zero and so on until we trick computers into letting us use pi))

okay so now we know exactly what were putting into to the equation lets test it.

we have two pieces of corn weighing 100g each.

100g x 299,792,458 m/s = 29,979,245,800 s/d x 29,979,245,800 s/d = ....asln

(g = grams)

(m/s = miles per second)

(s/d = super dupers)

(asln = a stupidly large number)

29,979,245,800 adding itself 100 times, then 29,979,245,800 values of itself(weeeeeeeeeee)

I believe the best analogy i can give is that einsteins picture of energy in its purest form is a corn popping .... however the variables would be slightly different, so for example the size of a piece of corn that pops would be turned into to say an atom turning into our planet and this probably isnt suffice due to the speed of light

nothing would exist after we used the energy (other than the already present vacuum?) but the parameters of the energy are defined as the the maximum output in any of the 3 dimensions relative to this equation.

please correct(aid my development) the above before we discuss the below

so what is it you might say that is wrong with this equation that looks as though (if we can for a minute) its the big bang in mathematical terms

 

i have lots more to say about the whole E in this equation but i would appreciate other peoples opinions on my description of the theory before i venture on.

Edited March 19, 2011 by keelanz

[swansont]

m/s is meters/second (SI units)

 

You're going to have some difficulties when you jump in trying to understand relativity with no physics background, but …

 

You can convert mass into other forms of energy. If you pop a kernel of popcorn, its mass increases as you heat it up. It's a tiny amount, because c^2 is a big number. But we can measure mass changes in smaller systems, where the fractional change in mass is larger.

[keelanz]

You can convert mass into other forms of energy.

 

oh yes i know this, but i dont believe e=mc2 deals with this? it has no mathematical function or equation that includes any other forms of energy just SOL, i have GCSE level background in physics but surely it is as simple as i purposed above? i have a very good mathematical background if that helps? =D (you can probably see why i enjoyed the switch from numbers with no purpose to the building blocks of our existence)

 

c^2 = c squared? because im used to that notation being logical based

 

what i really wanted to know, even though i greatly appreciate your comment (and corrections), is weather einstein saw pure energy as a huge release of light from its original mass? and weather my analogy is in some way accurate to what einstein himself imaged when creating this equation.</div>

 

pleaseeeeeeee lol

Edited March 19, 2011 by keelanz

[Zarnaxus]

Even in special relativity, mass and energy are still conserved seperately. Mass cannot actually get converted into energy. Mass and energy cannot be destroyed; they just move from one location to another. We use mass energy equivalence when we want to measure the small amounts of mass lost along with large amounts of energy, like in nuclear reactors.

Mass energy equivalence is in fact in agreement with the first law of thermodynamics. Also, the relativistic momentum-energy relationship is where p is equal to momentum i believe.

[swansont]

Even in special relativity, mass and energy are still conserved seperately. Mass cannot actually get converted into energy. Mass and energy cannot be destroyed; they just move from one location to another. We use mass energy equivalence when we want to measure the small amounts of mass lost along with large amounts of energy, like in nuclear reactors.

Mass energy equivalence is in fact in agreement with the first law of thermodynamics. Also, the relativistic momentum-energy relationship is where p is equal to momentum i believe.

 

You've contradicted yourself. The equation you posted is at odds with the notion that mass is conserved. In that paradigm, mass is one form of energy, but it's possible to have an equal amount of energy with no mass at all. In a nuclear reactor (or the sun), the mass decreases over time as it is converted to other forms of energy.

[triskaidekaphile]

when you look up mass in wikipedia it says that it shouldn't be confused with matter since energy is also found to have mass, but wikipedia must have something wrong becuase if you look up E=MC^2 in wikipedia it says that the M represents mass, but why would Einstein make a formula for converting energy into energy? so i figure it's actually supposed to represent matter.

 

having said that, i am confused by what Swansont said when he said that it's possible to have energy with no mass at all even if it's the equivalent to the amount of energy in a given sample of matter that does have mass. it's been my understanding that you would always have that mass. for instance, even when you speed up an object and are putting in kinetic energy it gains mass.

 

and Keelanz, i beleive there is something left behind when all the energy is taken out, provided it isn't something that naturally sticks to energy. i wish you good luck in your endeavors.

[swansont]

when you look up mass in wikipedia it says that it shouldn't be confused with matter since energy is also found to have mass, but wikipedia must have something wrong becuase if you look up E=MC^2 in wikipedia it says that the M represents mass, but why would Einstein make a formula for converting energy into energy? so i figure it's actually supposed to represent matter.

 

having said that, i am confused by what Swansont said when he said that it's possible to have energy with no mass at all even if it's the equivalent to the amount of energy in a given sample of matter that does have mass. it's been my understanding that you would always have that mass. for instance, even when you speed up an object and are putting in kinetic energy it gains mass.

 

When one claims that moving objects gain mass, one is using a different definition of mass than the one given in the equation Zarnaxus posted, which is the contradiction. Relativistic mass has a different definition than invariant (rest) mass. You can't mix them up — they are not interchangeable.

[keelanz]

When one claims that moving objects gain mass, one is using a different definition of mass than the one given in the equation Zarnaxus posted, which is the contradiction. Relativistic mass has a different definition than invariant (rest) mass. You can't mix them up — they are not interchangeable.

 

apparently einstien in all his genius has mixed them as he didnt define what the m stood for in terms of relativistic mass or rest mass, he uses m interchangeably?

 

i think perhaps einsiten was defining m as something as anything such that it must necessarily exist and in some system be accountable to that existence (this essentially means mass is matter but accountable to the specific system )

 

below is a cross breed of physics/philosophy

 

(for now use a logical circuit board or physical existence as our system, everything within existence needs a system for its existence so theres plenty of them if you start thinking. E.G computer games only come into existence when theres a computer game system in place...rahhh?)

 

i would like your feedback on the analogy i originally gave, i deal alot in computers so i believe that anything can be logical of its own system. Which means anything within that system is automatically true of that system (im dealing with logical manipulation right now but its true of maths, language and science etc).

 

 

I believe "imagining" the equation bring's more truth to it and by taking the "pragmatic" approach it wont be too long anyway.........

Edited April 10, 2011 by keelanz

[swansont]

apparently einstien in all his genius has mixed them as he didnt define what the m stood for in terms of relativistic mass or rest mass, he uses m interchangeably?

 

i think perhaps einsiten was defining m as something as anything such that it must necessarily exist and in some system be accountable to that existence (this essentially means mass is matter but accountable to the specific system )

 

No, not really. The use is defined by the context. At best (or worst) you can be ambiguous, but what you can't do is use both definitions in the same explanation without clearly differentiating between them.

[lemur]

No, not really. The use is defined by the context. At best (or worst) you can be ambiguous, but what you can't do is use both definitions in the same explanation without clearly differentiating between them.

 

How do you know Einstein wasn't trying to deconstruct the whole distinction between mass as passive energy and energy as active particles? That equation always seemed to me to say that mass is ultimately reducible to kinetic energy and I also assumed that some model of matter would be realized that attributes mass/inertia directly to some aspect of sub-atomic motion, the way gyroscopic resistance is due to course-change resistance in a moving object.

[swansont]

How do you know Einstein wasn't trying to deconstruct the whole distinction between mass as passive energy and energy as active particles? That equation always seemed to me to say that mass is ultimately reducible to kinetic energy and I also assumed that some model of matter would be realized that attributes mass/inertia directly to some aspect of sub-atomic motion, the way gyroscopic resistance is due to course-change resistance in a moving object.

 

http://arxiv.org/abs/0808.0437

[keelanz]

No, not really. The use is defined by the context. At best (or worst) you can be ambiguous, but what you can't do is use both definitions in the same explanation without clearly differentiating between them.

 

im not sure it matters, speed combined with weight create a force and that force is an illusion of weight (think relativity)

 

i think einstein was defining mass as some form of existence rather than giving mass any finite definition

 

it doesnt matter what context you place e=mc^2 because its functionality is the same, get E from M.......

 

if you take e=mc^2 away from any current systems it wouldnt matter how you define M anyway

 

"Something must exist for people, something so austere, so lofty, so sacrosanct that it would make profaning it unthinkable"

 

theres all sorts of questions for this equation that im sure only einstein himself understood, im sure you guys can help me on my way a little though for example why square the number? im sure finding the smallest thing we can measure and timesing it by the speed of light is the most your gona get out of that tiny mass, what made einstein think it could possibly add itself to itself its own amount of times (after it has already become light), heres another question why is he timesing at all? why isnt it its mass divided by light? the bigger mass is still going to be bigger energy just within much smaller parameters. its not like we have to be super specific with the amount of energy unless we have a cause, also if its mc then automatically it would be m/c after mc......what goes up must come down, like if (e=mc^2) then (m=sqrt(e/c)) you know? counter balance of equations or something? ALSO why doesnt it account for relativity of E's, E isnt one thing its many amazing things such as light, heat, magnetism, electricity and most forms of movement etc why is E defined as only including one of these E's? it may be the fastest but it probably isnt the power-fullest or most useful form of E to use at all. opinions?

 

when you look up mass in wikipedia it says that it shouldn't be confused with matter since energy is also found to have mass, but wikipedia must have something wrong becuase if you look up E=MC^2 in wikipedia it says that the M represents mass, but why would Einstein make a formula for converting energy into energy? so i figure it's actually supposed to represent matter.

 

having said that, i am confused by what Swansont said when he said that it's possible to have energy with no mass at all even if it's the equivalent to the amount of energy in a given sample of matter that does have mass. it's been my understanding that you would always have that mass. for instance, even when you speed up an object and are putting in kinetic energy it gains mass.

 

and Keelanz, i beleive there is something left behind when all the energy is taken out, provided it isn't something that naturally sticks to energy. i wish you good luck in your endeavors.

 

Personally i just think its all relative ALL of it, all energy's are linked, mass is linked, they all need each other or interact and change each other, things like energy, time and mass cant exist without each other, thats to say energy cant be defined without a huge list of variables which come from a few fundamental forces or laws? whatever you define 3 dimensions, time, mass, energy & gravity as i suppose like somehow these forces or laws are one another. This is how i think of it, it would be pretty much impossible to create a useful equation for E right now, but we could create one with basic laws and watch it grow

[lemur]

http://arxiv.org/abs/0808.0437

The author's concluding sentence states that he basically wants to stop teaching students that mass and energy are different forms of the same thing because he claims that pluralism is politically correct and fruitful. However, on page 11 he quotes Einstein as saying,

“Mass and energy are therefore essentially alike; they are only different expressions of the same thing. The mass of a body is not constant; it varies with changes in its energy.” Then follows a footnote about energy release in radioactive decays

This logic is well-known relating to the products of radioactive decay having less mass than the mother substance. But he doesn't specify that mass and energy are alike for radioactive materials. I have the impression that he believed that rest mass was a product of energy. Why would he say they are "essentially alike" if he actually believed that there were fundamental particles of mass that couldn't be reduced to energy?

[swansont]

The author's concluding sentence states that he basically wants to stop teaching students that mass and energy are different forms of the same thing because he claims that pluralism is politically correct and fruitful.

 

I think you misread that. He said that in the world of opinion, it is considered pc and fruitful. Science is objective rather than subjective, i.e. it's not opinion. He's making the argument against pluralism when it is tied in with unnecessary ambiguity.

 

 

However, on page 11 he quotes Einstein as saying,

[/size][/font]

This logic is well-known relating to the products of radioactive decay having less mass than the mother substance. But he doesn't specify that mass and energy are alike for radioactive materials. I have the impression that he believed that rest mass was a product of energy. Why would he say they are "essentially alike" if he actually believed that there were fundamental particles of mass that couldn't be reduced to energy?

 

This seems to be a different argument than you were making a few posts back. Mass can be converted into other forms of energy, but thats' not the same as saying that a particle with kinetic energy has more mass. Different meanings of mass.

[lemur]

I think you misread that. He said that in the world of opinion, it is considered pc and fruitful. Science is objective rather than subjective, i.e. it's not opinion. He's making the argument against pluralism when it is tied in with unnecessary ambiguity.

Idk, I think he mentioned the idea that it would be fruitful to teach students both approaches separately instead of focussing on a single best approach that combines energy and matter as mass. Just because science is objective doesn't mean it's impossible to have different epistemological approaches existing side-by-side. Generally I don't like pluralism and relativism but the alternative, i.e. attacking any approach just because it is not the one you support, also has drawbacks. I think the best critical discourse comes from having open criticism among conflicting approaches, but to do that you have to have some conflict. Organizing it into epistemological pluralism may prevent conflict/intercourse by promoting the idea that each approach is valid in itself as its own paradigm and that plural paradigms can't or shouldn't be used as sources for critique in each other's discourses.

 

This seems to be a different argument than you were making a few posts back. Mass can be converted into other forms of energy, but thats' not the same as saying that a particle with kinetic energy has more mass. Different meanings of mass.

I guess what your point is and what the author's point was, is that it's different to say that the momentum of an object with rest mass has increased mass due to its momentum than it is to say that an object with rest mass has energy that is causing it to have rest mass in the first place? I know that electrons, protons, and neutrons are ascribed mass. Are their sub-constituent particles, e.g. quarks etc.? Could there be some level of matter where the constituents are all point-particle-fields devoid of rest mass? If so, mass would be an emergent phenomenon, right? And if it was an emergent phenomenon, you would understand the relationship between the factors that constitute it and its relative stability, so you could explain why mass emerges at the atomic level but doesn't increase in subsequent levels of energetic systems, for example. Could it also be that the mass of a moving object doesn't increase due to its momentum, but the mass of the system it is a part of does? I.e. could mass be an emergent effect of force-exerting particles moving in relation to each other, like the way magnetism is emergent from the movement of electric charges (vis-a-vis what exactly?)?

 

 

[swansont]

Idk, I think he mentioned the idea that it would be fruitful to teach students both approaches separately instead of focussing on a single best approach that combines energy and matter as mass. Just because science is objective doesn't mean it's impossible to have different epistemological approaches existing side-by-side. Generally I don't like pluralism and relativism but the alternative, i.e. attacking any approach just because it is not the one you support, also has drawbacks. I think the best critical discourse comes from having open criticism among conflicting approaches, but to do that you have to have some conflict. Organizing it into epistemological pluralism may prevent conflict/intercourse by promoting the idea that each approach is valid in itself as its own paradigm and that plural paradigms can't or shouldn't be used as sources for critique in each other's discourses.

 

He doesn't say it would be fruitful to teach both. You appear to have missed the parts where he called the concept behind relativistic mass a widespread fallacy and a weed, and where he concludes by saying "It is high time we stopped deceiving new generations of college and high school students by inculcating into them the conviction that mass increasing with increasing velocity is an experimental fact"

[lemur]

He doesn't say it would be fruitful to teach both. You appear to have missed the parts where he called the concept behind relativistic mass a widespread fallacy and a weed, and where he concludes by saying "It is high time we stopped deceiving new generations of college and high school students by inculcating into them the conviction that mass increasing with increasing velocity is an experimental fact"

I re-read it and it seems you're right. He was saying that he wants to stop deceiving students that rest-mass increases with speed. So what does/would he want to do with Einstein's claim that mass and energy are "essentially alike . . . only different expressions of the same thing?"

[swansont]

I re-read it and it seems you're right. He was saying that he wants to stop deceiving students that rest-mass increases with speed. So what does/would he want to do with Einstein's claim that mass and energy are "essentially alike . . . only different expressions of the same thing?"

 

That mass is another forms of energy, and you can convert between them. If a particle gives off a photon, its mass decreases.

[lemur]

That mass is another forms of energy, and you can convert between them. If a particle gives off a photon, its mass decreases.

Are there any absolute limits where certain forms of matter with mass could never be converted to energy under any physical conditions? And why is there as of yet practically no natural mechanisms theorized for the conversion from energy into matter (that I know of anyway)? Is it assumed that energy originates as matter w/ mass and may degenerate into energy under certain conditions but that the process is basically 1-way entropy?

[swansont]

No restriction as far as I am aware, but by the same token there is no rule that says you must be able to do the conversion.

[keelanz]

so conclusions...?

 

e=mc^2?

Edited April 13, 2011 by keelanz

[keelanz]

Even in special relativity, mass and energy are still conserved seperately. Mass cannot actually get converted into energy. Mass and energy cannot be destroyed; they just move from one location to another. We use mass energy equivalence when we want to measure the small amounts of mass lost along with large amounts of energy, like in nuclear reactors.

Mass energy equivalence is in fact in agreement with the first law of thermodynamics. Also, the relativistic momentum-energy relationship is where p is equal to momentum i believe.

 

if this is true how can you ever prove e=mc^2

[swansont]

if this is true how can you ever prove e=mc^2

 

In the scientific sense of the word, you do a bunch of experiments that rely on it being true and see if they work, and wouldn't work it it were false. Which we have done, and they do.